It's one of those sayings that in translation may not sound right. "If you enter a dance than you must dance"

But I'm not entering this dance. I'm trying to get you to STOP dancing and actually offer a cogent argument for some of the things you've said on this thread.

I'm Greek buddy. Can you take the stripes off a zebra.

Stop trying to derail this thread. If you can't offer an intelligent defense of your assertions here, then just say so. Otherwise, your song and dance routine is getting very aggravating and needs to stop now.

Orthodoxy is about building a personality somewhat equal in stature to Christ. Theosis. Repenting of sins is a means and not a finality of theosis. One isn't free from sins and justified the moment they are obsolved unless their moving from there sinful state towards a different personhood. The sacrament isn't a revolving door because every week you will return with the intent to be purified again. The sacrament is used as a means to better your stance towards the annihilation of sin all together.

But how does this answer my question? Your attempt at an answer has done nothing but explain the Orthodox understanding of Confession. I asked you to explain the Western understanding of Confession and to point out how so many of us have adopted this interpretation.

Grace and Peace to everyone,

Regardless both Catholics in the Roman Church and Orthodox with Holy Orthodoxy wish to live a life of devotion because we each think of ourselves as Christians and know that it is a virtue most pleasing to God. Since little faults committed in the beginning of a project grow infinitely greater in its course and finally are almost irreparable, above all else we must know what the virtue of devotion is. There is only one true devotion but there are many that are false and empty. If we are unable to recognize which kind are true, we can easily be deceived and led astray by following one that is ultimately offensive and ground in superstition.

It is often in painting the artist crafts the likeness of all faces after the manner and appearance of the women in whom he has affections, and so too everyone paints devotion according to his own passions and fancies. A man given to fasting thinks himself very devout if he fasts, although his heart may be filled with many hatreds. Much concerned with sobriety, he doesn't dare to wet his tongue with wine or even water but won't hesitate to drink deep of his co-worker's blood by detraction and calumny. Another man thinks himself devout because he daily recites a vast number of prayers, but after saying them he utters the most disagreeable, arrogant, and harmful words at home and among the neighbors. Another gladly takes cash out of his wallet and gives it to the poor, but he cannot extract kindness from his heart and forgive his enemies. Another forgives his enemies by never pays his creditors unless compelled to do so by force of law. All these men are usually considered to be devout, but they are by no means such. Saul's servants searched for David in his house but Michol had put a statue on his bed, covered it with David's clothes, and thus led them to think that it was David himself lying there sick and sleeping. In the same manner, many persons clothe themselves with certain outward actions connected with holy devotion and the world believes that they are truly devout and spiritual whereas they are in fact nothing but copies and phantoms of devotion.

Genuine, living devotion, presupposes love of God, and so it is simply true love of God. Yet it is not always love as such. Inasmuch as divine love adorns the soul, it is called grace, which makes us pleasing to his Divine Majesty. Inasmuch as it strengthens us to do good, it is called charity. When it has reached a degree of perfection at which it not only makes us do good but also do this carefully, frequently, and promptly, it is called devotion. Ostriches never fly, hens fly in a clumsy fashion, near the ground, and only once in a while, but eagles, doves, and swallows fly aloft, swiftly and frequently. In like manner, sinners in no way fly up towards God, but make their whole course here upon the earth and for the earth. Good people who have not as yet attained to devotion fly toward God by their good works but do so infrequently, slowly, and awkwardly. Devout souls ascend to him more frequently, promptly, and with lofty flights. In short, devotion is simply that spiritual agility and vivacity by which charity works in us or by aid of which we work quickly and lovingly. Just as it is the function of charity to enable us to observe all God's Commandments in general and without exception, so it is the part of devotion to enable us to observe them more quickly and diligently. So a man who does not observe all God's Commandments cannot be held to be either good or devout. To be good he must have charity, and to be devout, in addition to charity he must have great ardor and readiness in performing charitable actions.

Since devotion consists in a certain degree of eminent charity, it not only makes us prompt, active, and faithful in observance of God's Commandments, but in addition it arouses us to do quickly and lovingly as many good works as possible, both those commanded and those merely counseled or inspired. A man just recovered from illness walks only as far as he must and then slowly and with difficultly; so also a sinner just healed of his iniquity walks as far as God commands him, but he walks slowly and with difficulty until such time as he has attained devotion. Then like a man in sound health he not only walks but runs and leaps forward "on the way of God's Commandments." Furthermore, he moves and runs in the paths of his heavenly counsels and inspirations. To conclude, charity and devotion differ no more from one another than does flame from the fire. Charity is spiritual fire and when it bursts into flames, it is called devotion. So devotion adds nothing to the fire of charity except the flame makes charity all the more prompt, active, and diligent.

When we look at the man just recovered from illness we must recognize in that state the sinner just healed of his iniquity from the balm of penance. He does not emerge from the physician's table in full vigor although the surgery was successful in removing what ailed him. He will still be in need of recovery until he regains his full health and spiritual vigor. That may take time and perhaps further labor by the physician and even proper diet and exercise for him to recover to full health. In our day, few fully recover as far too many stray among the same agents of filth and once again find themselves infected. This is to be lamented but too true.

This is how sin and confession is explained by St. Francis de Sales.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 10:43:41 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

It's one of those sayings that in translation may not sound right. "If you enter a dance than you must dance"

But I'm not entering this dance. I'm trying to get you to STOP dancing and actually offer a cogent argument for some of the things you've said on this thread.

I'm Greek buddy. Can you take the stripes off a zebra.

Stop trying to derail this thread. If you can't offer an intelligent defense of your assertions here, then just say so. Otherwise, your song and dance routine is getting very aggravating and needs to stop now.

Take it easy fellow,

If it is aggravating let go of your ego and ignore???

Just a suggestion.

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

It's one of those sayings that in translation may not sound right. "If you enter a dance than you must dance"

But I'm not entering this dance. I'm trying to get you to STOP dancing and actually offer a cogent argument for some of the things you've said on this thread.

I'm Greek buddy. Can you take the stripes off a zebra.

Stop trying to derail this thread. If you can't offer an intelligent defense of your assertions here, then just say so. Otherwise, your song and dance routine is getting very aggravating and needs to stop now.

If you two understood the history we moderators--do note that I posted my directive in green, a color that only we moderators use--have had with Demetrios, you might think differently. For fear of derailing this thread myself, any more discussion of my response needs to go to the PM system. If you feel it necessary, go ahead and report me to the Global Moderator in charge of overseeing my work on the Faith Board, cleveland. Let's just not talk about it here.

The one time I went to Confession, I mentioned the major sins and every other sin I ever committed in word, thought or deed. There's no such thing as petty sins and if anything, "petty sins" mocks the Western denominations which is inappropriate.

Perhaps, and this is only a cursory guess, the Western understanding being suggested is refering to something akin to being overly or hyper Moralistic?

For example: If I were walking a side walk and saw a penny on the ground and picked it up, have I sinned?

The penny was not mine, or perhaps it was, if I happen to walk this sidewalk often. Should I keep it and pay a tithe on it, or give it all away? What if I needed the copper (supposing it were a copper penny) and not the utilitarian value set by Federal Reserve, if I smelt it down which is against the ordinance of man, but is it against the law of God? What if I did not have enough money to buy the minimum amount of copper I needed, but that penny was the exact amount (or more) than I needed, is that found penny providentially supplied? It says right on the head side "In God We Trust," and now the found penny meets my exact need, should I ignore the penny like the man who ignored the helicopter attempting to rescue him from his roof top in a flood saying, "God will rescue me!"

or

What if tommorrow if were discovered that computer greens cause irrational reasonings in some men who gaze too long at computer screens? Who sins, he who reads and disagrees, or he who writes and ignites the fight?

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

Perhaps, and this is only a cursory guess, the Western understanding being suggested is refering to something akin to being overly or hyper Moralistic?

For example: If I were walking a side walk and saw a penny on the ground and picked it up, have I sinned?

The penny was not mine, or perhaps it was, if I happen to walk this sidewalk often. Should I keep it and pay a tithe on it, or give it all away? What if I needed the copper (supposing it were a copper penny) and not the utilitarian value set by Federal Reserve, if I smelt it down which is against the ordinance of man, but is it against the law of God? What if I did not have enough money to buy the minimum amount of copper I needed, but that penny was the exact amount (or more) than I needed, is that found penny providentially supplied? It says right on the head side "In God We Trust," and now the found penny meets my exact need, should I ignore the penny like the man who ignored the helicopter attempting to rescue him from his roof top in a flood saying, "God will rescue me!"

or

What if tommorrow if were discovered that computer greens cause irrational reasonings in some men who gaze too long at computer screens? Who sins, he who reads and disagrees, or he who writes and ignites the fight?

Our orthodox christian ethics is shaped by two things: revelation of God in scripture (i.e. what Jesus did, we do), and the lives of the saints. If you need an answer to your question, I suggest you use those two sources, b/c they are normative for our faith and life.

OK, are you suggesting that according to normative Orthodox Christian ethics a women not wearing a head covering at any church gathering is not committing a petty sin? Or do you think that normative Orthdoox Christian ethics does not include Apostolic and Patristic teaching on the matter?

+Archbishop Averky wrote the following comments about this matter:

The eleventh chapter contains an exposé and remedy for certain improprieties in church gatherings, namely: 1) women not covering their heads in church, and 2) disorders at agape dinners. The essence of the first injunction lies in the fact that at common church gatherings women should attend with their heads covered, and men with their heads bared.

St. John Chrysostom explains this injunction by saying that in Corinth, "women with uncovered and bared heads both prayed and prophesied, while men grew their hair, like those who occupied themselves with philosophizing, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering in both cases to a pagan law." The holy Apostle, finding this inappropriate for Christians, requires that women cover their heads, as a sign of their submissive state in relation to the husband. Besides this, at that time pagan women would go into their temples with uncovered heads, having impure motives, and a bared head for a woman came to be considered a sign of her shamelessness. A profligate woman was punished for her profligacy by having her hair cut off. This is why the Apostle says, if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn (v. 6).

Inappropriate? But is it a sin? Has it not been normative among Orthodox Saints to teach and practice that women do so, and has not that normative requirement been rooted and grounded in a revelation of God in Man and Woman as taught in Scripture? And is not that normative revelation rooted and grounded in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who is head over the Church?

The relationship between man and woman is expounded by the Apostle in more than one place in his writings to the Church(es) explained: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Yet, in our modern scientific societal minds, we no longer believe that revelation and consider such a topic petty and divisive so that we veer from the plain words and the Apostolic Tradition received and passed on to us through the Patristic witness along with the actual historical practice of the Saints in the Church. Is this petty? Was it petty for the Apostle to link a theological revelation of God and the Church with a head covering?

Is it petty enough to axed from the discussion as a possible topic of derailment?

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

Discussing what is or is not sin is not the place for Internet forums as it could lead to judging one another. Rather, if one has a question about sin, one should consult their Spiritual Father, as that is what he is there for.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

OK, are you suggesting that according to normative Orthodox Christian ethics a women not wearing a head covering at any church gathering is not committing a petty sin? Or do you think that normative Orthdoox Christian ethics does not include Apostolic and Patristic teaching on the matter?

+Archbishop Averky wrote the following comments about this matter:

The eleventh chapter contains an exposé and remedy for certain improprieties in church gatherings, namely: 1) women not covering their heads in church, and 2) disorders at agape dinners. The essence of the first injunction lies in the fact that at common church gatherings women should attend with their heads covered, and men with their heads bared.

St. John Chrysostom explains this injunction by saying that in Corinth, "women with uncovered and bared heads both prayed and prophesied, while men grew their hair, like those who occupied themselves with philosophizing, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering in both cases to a pagan law." The holy Apostle, finding this inappropriate for Christians, requires that women cover their heads, as a sign of their submissive state in relation to the husband. Besides this, at that time pagan women would go into their temples with uncovered heads, having impure motives, and a bared head for a woman came to be considered a sign of her shamelessness. A profligate woman was punished for her profligacy by having her hair cut off. This is why the Apostle says, if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn (v. 6).

Inappropriate? But is it a sin? Has it not been normative among Orthodox Saints to teach and practice that women do so, and has not that normative requirement been rooted and grounded in a revelation of God in Man and Woman as taught in Scripture? And is not that normative revelation rooted and grounded in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who is head over the Church?

The relationship between man and woman is expounded by the Apostle in more than one place in his writings to the Church(es) explained: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Yet, in our modern scientific societal minds, we no longer believe that revelation and consider such a topic petty and divisive so that we veer from the plain words and the Apostolic Tradition received and passed on to us through the Patristic witness along with the actual historical practice of the Saints in the Church. Is this petty? Was it petty for the Apostle to link a theological revelation of God and the Church with a head covering?

Is it petty enough to axed from the discussion as a possible topic of derailment?

I would say that you need to do two things when assessing this issue: look at scripture and the LIVES of the saints (not their writings or sayings).

WHere in scripture does in condone or condemn head coverings? WHere do the ACTIONS of Christ condone or condemn head coverings? It's all about the ethics of what was revealed about christ, and then how the lives lived out their lives, as icons of christ.

I have never in my life seen an icon of a female saint with a head covering INSIDE of a church (or period for that matter). I have also can't think of a parable offhand that deals with head coverings. I do remember other aspects of scripture that talk about how to treat women in general and etc.

OK, are you suggesting that according to normative Orthodox Christian ethics a women not wearing a head covering at any church gathering is not committing a petty sin? Or do you think that normative Orthdoox Christian ethics does not include Apostolic and Patristic teaching on the matter?

+Archbishop Averky wrote the following comments about this matter:

The eleventh chapter contains an exposé and remedy for certain improprieties in church gatherings, namely: 1) women not covering their heads in church, and 2) disorders at agape dinners. The essence of the first injunction lies in the fact that at common church gatherings women should attend with their heads covered, and men with their heads bared.

St. John Chrysostom explains this injunction by saying that in Corinth, "women with uncovered and bared heads both prayed and prophesied, while men grew their hair, like those who occupied themselves with philosophizing, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering in both cases to a pagan law." The holy Apostle, finding this inappropriate for Christians, requires that women cover their heads, as a sign of their submissive state in relation to the husband. Besides this, at that time pagan women would go into their temples with uncovered heads, having impure motives, and a bared head for a woman came to be considered a sign of her shamelessness. A profligate woman was punished for her profligacy by having her hair cut off. This is why the Apostle says, if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn (v. 6).

Inappropriate? But is it a sin? Has it not been normative among Orthodox Saints to teach and practice that women do so, and has not that normative requirement been rooted and grounded in a revelation of God in Man and Woman as taught in Scripture? And is not that normative revelation rooted and grounded in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who is head over the Church?

The relationship between man and woman is expounded by the Apostle in more than one place in his writings to the Church(es) explained: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Yet, in our modern scientific societal minds, we no longer believe that revelation and consider such a topic petty and divisive so that we veer from the plain words and the Apostolic Tradition received and passed on to us through the Patristic witness along with the actual historical practice of the Saints in the Church. Is this petty? Was it petty for the Apostle to link a theological revelation of God and the Church with a head covering?

Is it petty enough to axed from the discussion as a possible topic of derailment?

So is the point of this thread to define a list of activities that we should consider sins, or to agree/disagree that we should confess all of them, "big" and "small"?

I would say that you need to do two things when assessing this issue: look at scripture and the LIVES of the saints (not their writings or sayings).

WHere in scripture does in condone or condemn head coverings? WHere do the ACTIONS of Christ condone or condemn head coverings? It's all about the ethics of what was revealed about christ, and then how the lives lived out their lives, as icons of christ.

I have never in my life seen an icon of a female saint with a head covering INSIDE of a church (or period for that matter). I have also can't think of a parable offhand that deals with head coverings. I do remember other aspects of scripture that talk about how to treat women in general and etc.

Does this make sense?

Every single icon of the Theotokos, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Monica, St. Helen, The Myrh Bearing Women, and many others, has their heads covered. (Just look at the icon in my avatar for proof.)

The following Bible verses discuss head coverings:

1 Corinthians 11:6-86 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

However, that is not the point of this thread.

These are all issues to be discussed with ONE'S SPIRITUAL FATHER.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

I would say that you need to do two things when assessing this issue: look at scripture and the LIVES of the saints (not their writings or sayings).

WHere in scripture does in condone or condemn head coverings? WHere do the ACTIONS of Christ condone or condemn head coverings? It's all about the ethics of what was revealed about christ, and then how the lives lived out their lives, as icons of christ.

I have never in my life seen an icon of a female saint with a head covering INSIDE of a church (or period for that matter). I have also can't think of a parable offhand that deals with head coverings. I do remember other aspects of scripture that talk about how to treat women in general and etc.

Does this make sense?

Every single icon of the Theotokos, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Monica, St. Helen, The Myrh Bearing Women, and many others, has their heads covered. (Just look at the icon in my avatar for proof.)

The following Bible verses discuss head coverings:

1 Corinthians 11:6-86 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

However, that is not the point of this thread.

These are all issues to be discussed with ONE'S SPIRITUAL FATHER.

You are right, this thread is not for the present conversation. Here are some other threads that maybe we should take a look at before we re-hash anything:

Some of these are better than others an some are more directly correlated than others, but most of them have something to contribute to the conversation. Also, about 7 of them are directly related to the topic we have discussed.

If the thread is to be split, it's up to the moderators. If you want to start your own thread about this feel free. Otherwise either continue another thread about this, start your own thread, or we can continue the conversation we're already having. Those are the options I see.

Please don't mis-understand me brother, I wasn't trying to debate you. I just think both the purpose of this thread and the subject of headcoverings are best left for discussion with one's SF.

Forgive me as well, I wanted to make a comment about that as well but I forgot yesterday. I think that speaking with your spiritual father is of course the ultimate course of action on these things. HOWEVER I also believe that it is good for us to be able to discuss things with each other. Each of us can bring an opinion or historical data, or the church fathers, so that we can come to a better understanding of the topic itself. This creates dialogue, relationship, understanding, learning, and fosters healthy reasoning about issues we may be confused about.

At the end of the day though, what you DO is up to you spiritual father. how you frame your thoughts and spirituality/piety is up to you and your spiritual father. But that doesn't mean that you should be opposed to someone random changing your mind through conversation. If we are not open to change, then that is something we should investigate.

Anyway. If you would LIKE to continue the conversation in one of the threads I listed above, let me know. I personally would love to continue the conversation, but it's up to you.

That question cannot be answered in common or even with disagreement intelligently if we do not have some unanimity of what is or is not sin, and what is or is not petty.

Sin is a communal disease; this is clearly established in the Mosaic Law(s).

This also is the teaching of the Apostle Paul reitereated often within his epistles, i.e.,

At its root, sin is a rebellious defense of pride; a justification of asserting our felt(sensucal) needs over the unity, peace and harmony of the whole community of mankind.

The Law exposes or gives occassion for sin to manifest itself; that is the purpose of the Law. Why must sin become manifest? There are various reasons, but the simplist and most direct answer is so those who are affected by its sting might recognize their need to be healed (saved), which is Eternal life, not just in the future, but in the here and now.

In none of my posts on this thread have I defended the idea of petty sin(s), I have never thought in such categories, for my mother taught me from childhood "it is the little foxes which spoil the vine."

The Shepherd is to guard the flock, the husbandmand is to guard the vine, both of these are tasks which the Bishop gives to the local Priest, who may or may not be a Spiritual Father. But the Holy Spirit blows wheresoever He wills and distributes His gifts according to the Headship of our Lord Jesus Christ's purposes, namely gifted men and woman. Not everyone has the same gift or administration of the same gift and no man is without sin save One.

God seeks Holiness in the inward parts; that was the lesson taught in the Levitical Priesthood as they were required to examine each sacrifice for blemish both inside and out.

I can except that there are petty sins in perhaps in the same way there are minor prophets. However, I do not except the idea that sin is merely a behavioural abnormality of societal morality (BASM).

Recent Headline gossip provides a topical example: a recent gold medalist was photographed with a bong/a smoke inhaler/pipe. Since its publication that iconic hero of Olympian notariety has admitted and confessed he made some bad choices. Also recently, another American iconic hero in a public interview confessed he was under so much societal pressure to outperform peers that physical altering drugs were needed to live up to societal expectations, a choice now deeply regretted.

Whom did either of these persons sin against? The State, with its intrusive use of law to pry and ferrit out the criminal (BASM) and coerce conformity through penality. Their fans, who easily walk by Lazarus on their way into the Colossium of Recorded Immortality and teach their children to do the same. Their family, who must endure the Media Circus of clowns. What makes their infraction great or petty is affect, real or imagined.

The Psalmist said, "Against thee alone have I sinned and done that which is evil in thy sight," but his sin also had affect which divided his own household, resulted in the rape of his daughter and, divided the loyalties of citizenship and much more.

Sin is not just a matter of discussion with ones Spiritual Father (i.e., Priest); "The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone...", God has ordained that sin be curbed by communal relationships, however, even these can become so corrupted that under the banner of LOVE, certain types of sins (which have greater affect of corruption) are condoned and even exalted; these also the Lord addressed saying, go to your brother and if he will not hear you go to the Church.

Also, our Lord said it would be better to have a millstone tied around one's neck and be cast into the sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.